19th century Anglo-Jewish translators defended the Israelites’ behavior against the King James translation’s perceived accusation that the Jews “borrowed” the Egyptians belongings and never returned them.

Prof. Leonard Greenspoon

The Israelites despoiling the Egyptians. Image from f. 13 of the ‘Golden Haggadah.” 1325 – 1349

Borrowing from and Spoiling the Egyptians:
The King James Version

In describing how the Israelites prepared to leave Egypt, the King James Version (KJV) of Exodus 3:22 reads:

Exod 3:21 And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty: 3:22 But every woman shallborrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

Exod 11:2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. 11:3 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians…

Exod 12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: 12:36 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.

This translation states that Israel was told to “borrow” materials from the Egyptians, implying that they meant to return it, which they did not. Almost all Protestant and Catholic versions from the mid-19th to the late 20th century have changed the KJV to “request/ask of” (or something similar), most likely to avoid the impression that God commanded the Israelites to lie. Nevertheless, some contemporary Jewish versions, such as the NJPS, retain the term “borrow” without even noting the controversy or alternative.[1]

19th Century Jewish Bible Translators

How different it was for earlier Anglo-Jewish translators of the nineteenth century. For the most part, these translators made use of the KJV translation, and generally limited themselves to revising it where they perceived the text to be in serious error, or if the translation was problematic from a Jewish perspective, casting doubt on the authenticity of God or his chosen people, Israel. The translation of ש.א.ל in the above passages was one such example.

Selig Newman’s Critique of KJV[2] Selig Newman, a Jewish translator (KJV reviser) from the 1830s, was expansive in his criticisms of KJV here:

[There are many passages in which the KJV] translators were decidedly wrong. [Such cases] may prove dangerous to the infidel, by strengthening him in his unbelief, as well as to the believer, by raising doubts in his mind of the authenticity of a book which apparently contains so many incongruities. For example: “One shall borrow of his, or her neighbour,” but the meaning in the original is not borrow, but ask: i.e., “One shall ask or demand.” This is perfectly in accord with justice… whilst the permission or order to borrow without intending to restore, being a licence to defraud, could not have emanated from the fountain of justice.

Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz: Noting Antisemitic Overtones Newman’s observations were not isolated or idiosyncratic. The remarks of J.H. Hertz, chief rabbi of the British Empire (1913-1946) and editor of a very influential one volume English-language commentary on the Torah, echoed those of Newman:

[KJV] translates, “every woman shall borrow of her neighbour.” This translation is thoroughly mischievous and misleading. If there was any borrowing, it was on the part of the Egyptians, who had been taking the labour of the Israelites without recompense…. In modern times, enemies of the Bible vie with one another in finding terms strong enough in which to condemn the “deceit” practised on the Egyptians.[3]

“Borrowing” vs. “Aske” in Early
English-Language Versions

William Tyndale’s version of the Bible (for which he was murdered), published piecemeal in the 1530s, is the first English-language rendering of the Hebrew Bible.[4] It contains the term “borrow” in all relevant passages in the book of Exodus. Almost eighty percent of KJV is taken word-for-word from Tyndale, so statistically it not surprising to find “borrow” here.

But this was not the universal practice among early English translations. Most famously, the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560 by anti-monarchic Puritans, rendered the Hebrew with “aske.” Editions of the Geneva Bible were being printed in England as late as 1615, that is, four years after KJV first appeared. To signal the continued popularity of the Geneva Bible, the 1615 edition was the work of Robert Barker, who also had sole rights to publication of KJV.

Had KJV turned in this instance to an edition of the Geneva Bible (which they did on occasion), they would have included a form of “ask” rather than “borrow.” But the translators went with Tyndale here, and “borrow” became part of the English Bible from the mid-seventeenth century until the early twentieth, and with it, the harsh response of Newman and Hertz all but accusing the KJV of antisemitism, and certainly expressing concern that the translation could be used maliciously.

“Borrow” vs. “Ask” in Medieval Jewish Commentators

Ancient versions and translations offer us little help in determining how these verses were understood in antiquity. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) uses the same root as that of the MT. The various Aramaic targumim[5] all use the Aramaic version of the same root albeit with different spellings. The Greek LXX and the Latin Vulgate both use terms that can also be translated as borrow or ask (αἰτέω and peto/postulatum respectively).[6]

Anglo-Jewish translators were not the first to debate the meaning of this term in context. The matter was vigorously debated among the medieval commentators (mefarshim). For them, as for the 19th century Jewish translators, the matter wasn’t purely philological, but ideological. One commentator who made this point explicitly was Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meir, 1085-1158) in his gloss on Exod. 3:22:

“A woman will ask her neighbor” – as an unreserved and flat-out gift, for [the previous verse says] “and I will give this people favor [in the site of the Egyptians].” And this is akin to [the use of the root ש.א.ל in] (Ps 2:8), “Ask it of me and I will make the nations your domain.” This is the simple meaning [of the verse], and this is the answer to the sectarians.

Rashbam is explicit that the issue isn’t merely one of finding the best meaning for the context, but also about responding to what the “sectarians” or “heretics” (i.e., Christians) are saying. Ostensibly, he refers to the claim that if the Israelites had asked to borrow, it would have been a lie, leading to fraud and theft.[7] This impulse to defend the ancient Israelites from charges of manipulation and theft goes all the way back to Second Temple and rabbinic literature.[8]

Nevertheless, a number of medieval Jewish commentators such as Rashbam’s contemporary, Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1167), believed that the term should be translated as “borrow.” Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865) too says this in no uncertain terms (Exod 3:22):

There is no doubt that this was an act of trickery, for [the Israelites] did not say to the Egyptians that they would never return but that they were going for three days and then coming back.

Certainly, neither Shadal or ibn Ezra was interested in making Jews look bad—both even defend what they did as fair. Instead, they were simply trying to translate the text accurately, and understood the verb differently than Rashbam.

These different translations suggest that ש.א.ל may indeed be ambiguous. Is this really so?

“Request” or “Borrow” – An Ethical
and Lexicographical Quandary

Some passages require the Hebrew root ש.א.ל. to be rendered “borrow,” while in others it must be rendered “request/ask for.”

Requesting

Achsa wants land (Josh 15:16, Judg 1:14)

וַתְּסִיתֵהוּ לִשְׁאוֹל מֵאֵת אָבִיהָ שָׂדֶה

She (Achsa) induced him (Othniel) to ask her father (Caleb) for some property.

“Go,” he said, “and borrow vessels outside, from all your neighbors, empty vessels, as many as you can.”

Which of these possible usages is intended in the Egypt story? Are the Israelites supposed to borrow the items, pretending they will return them, or are they asking for gifts?

Reading the Story in Its Biblical Context

We may not be able to determine which verb, “borrow” or “request,” is best, but it is certain that the Torah has little problem with Israel’s plundering the Egyptians, and presents the matter unambiguously as part of the divine plan.

llustration of God’s promise to Abraham that the Israelites will leave Egypt with great wealth. ‘Hispano-Moresque Haggadah’ c. 1300

The Torah presents this plunder as part of the punishment to the Egyptians and the reward of the Israelites, and does not seem overly concerned about the fair play. As already noted above, God ensures that the Egyptians give their possessions to the Israelites willingly; this is repeated in all three passages about the requesting/borrowing.

Additionally, as a number of commentators point out,[9] the “plundering” or “despoiling” of the Egyptians was part of God’s promise to Abraham in the ברית בין הבתרים (Covenant between the Parts; Gen 15:14):

Deut 15:13 When you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: 15:14 Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the LORD your God has blessed you. 15:15 Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment upon you today.

Modern scholars have a tendency to dismiss a worry such as that of Newman and Hertz as irrelevant or, worse, silly. Why should the translation of a biblical verse, erroneous or not, have been the cause for so much alarm among earlier generations of translators and commentators?

Although nineteenth century England is less distant temporally from twenty-first century America as the latter is from ancient Israel, all sorts of presuppositions separate us from that century. Thus, understanding the historical reality in which Newman and Hertz were working is critical to understanding their response.

During much of the nineteenth century, British Jews were seeking social and civic equality; the Jewish community also was engaged in internal and institutional developments of its own. Thus, these Jewish translators were especially concerned to remove from their English versions (since they could not change the Hebrew text) any expression that would suggest character flaws on the part of biblical personages and their Anglo-Jewish descendants.

What was at stake, in the view of these translators, was the safety, perhaps even the survival, of their fellow Jews in a society in which they still labored under many social and legal impediments. In the hands of their enemies, a shifty Jacob of the Bible could easily foreshadow a shiftless Jacob from London’s East End, and Israelites who pretended to borrow from the Egyptians with no intention of repaying could become blood-sucking moneylenders.[11]

We may therefore conclude that a relatively innocuous biblical reference loomed larger than we might have expected for British Jews a hundred and fifty years or more ago.

Egyptian Lawsuits—Ancient and Modern Versions

Beyond its value as a historical and cultural footnote, does this have any relevance for us today? Alas, it does.

In 2003, as reported by the mediaworldwide, an Egyptian jurist, Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at Zagazig University, relying on just these passages, was preparing a lawsuit against “all the Jews of the world.” He claimed that their ancestors were responsible for absconding with the equivalent of more than 1,000 trillion tons of gold during the Exodus. This jurist apparently was willing to amortize this debt over a millennium, so long as cumulative interest was calculated and paid.

He was not the first to make such a claim; the rabbis tell a story about just such a lawsuit brought by the Egyptians against the Jews in the time of Alexander the Great. The Jews were defended by a sage named Gevihah ben Pesisa. This suit is explained in the Scholion to Megillat Taanit,[12] (Oxford MS):

Gevihah responded to them: “For 430 years, 600,000 Israelites were enslaved by you. Give each one of them 200 zuz per year [of service], which amounts to 8,600,000 maneh (1 maneh=100 zuz) per person. Then we will give you back your property.

יצאו כולם בפחי נפש.

They all left with deflated spirits.[13]

In both the rabbinic story and the modern attempt, the lawsuits went nowhere. Yet, they reflect Jewish anxiety about how the story of the despoiling of Egypt can be used against us, and offer an important lesson. For those seeking to discredit the Book, or the People of the Book, there is no concept of a statute of limitations and no desire to try and understand this account in its literary or historical setting. It merely serves as a useful pretext for anti-Jewish stereotyping. This cannot determine our translations, which must follow philology and context, but we should always remember what is at stake in any given choice.

___________________

Prof. Leonard Greenspoon holds the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish civilization at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is also Professor of Classical and Near Eastern Studies and of Theology there. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and is the editor of Purdue University Press’s Studies in Jewish Civilization series. Much of Greenspoon’s research focuses on Bible translations. He is the editor or author of more than twenty-six books, including Max Leopold Margolis: A Scholar’s Scholar (1987), Fashioning Jews: Clothing, Culture and Commerce (2013) and (with Sidnie White Crawford) The Book of Esther in Modern Research (2003)

02/22/2017

[1] In the Jewish Study Bible to Exod 3:22, however, which uses the NJPS translation , Jeffrey Tigay notes:

Borrow, better, “request.” The text need not imply deception, but a favor God will cause the Egyptians to bestow upon the departing Israelites (see v. 21).

[2] Newman was a teacher and the author of scholarly works such as the Abridged Hebrew Grammar and the Complete Hebrew and English Lexicon. Outside of the classroom he could be a potent activist. Thus, London’s Sunday News reports that at least once before he was involved in a dispute over the Christological interpretation of certain Old Testament passages that became so vociferous and potentially violent that women needed to be escorted away. For more information on Newman and his career, see the Jewish Encyclopedia 9.294

[3] On the apologetic and tendentious nature of many of Hertz’s comments, see Harvey W. Meirovich, A Vindication of Judaism: The Polemics of the Hertz Pentateuch (New York: JTS, 1998).

[6] The LXX translation of 11:2 adds a word, “Speak then secretly (κρυφῇ) in the ears of the people…” James Kugel suggests that this may imply that the LXX understood that the Israelites were asking to borrow as opposed to for a gift. In other words, because it was a lie, Moses had to make sure to tell the command to the Israelites in secret. See James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 554-555.

[7] For an analysis of this comment in the context of Rashbam’s polemical defense of Judaism against Christian claims, see Martin Lockshin, Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation (Brown Judaica Series 310; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 1997), ad loc.

[8] For a detailed discussion, see James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 553-557.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.